• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid on the Ropes in Nevada

j-mac said:
From what I can tell of it, from your perspective, he probably was the better choice. After all I don't think you would stray from the (D) column even if you agreed with the repub.
Click to expand...

Tell yourself what you have to.

Currently though, he is ruining the economy. To the point where even his own staff have kicked around the 'one term President' thing. All he, and liberals do at this point, is smear their political opponents, and continue to take every measure possible to evade ownership of their choices by casting blame where ever they can other than themselves. It is truly childish.
Click to expand...

More hyperbole. Presidents don't control the economy. He can't save it and he can't ruin it.

Actually he is in part. His road shows before this latest one was about half comedy. But I know, he's not a comedian you approve of, so it doesn't count.:roll:
Click to expand...

He would work better as a satire, but no. He presents him self as someone who is saying something honest. he isn't.

Have you been paying attention to what he, and his administration, hell, the uber liberals in congress for that matter have been doing the past two years? Have you noticed whom he has surrounded himself with? Do you not, at least in private consider the authoritarian bent he takes against those who buck him? It ain't that much of a stretch there Joe.:shock:
Click to expand...

Guilt by association? Any new tricks? No, I see no authoritarian bent. Read about LBJ if you really want to see someone with an authoritarian bent.


We give you facts, you ignore them. We try reason, you ignore that. Instead you continually come back with schoolyard complaints and name calling as if that were enough. I am only glad I haven't paid for this course from you. I'd demand my money back.
Click to expand...

J, miscontruded conclusions are nto and never will be fact. Take the quote you use as an example. The quote is a fact. the conclusion drawn is not. And if you read the article honestly, you would see it was not what Beck claimed it to be. Like I said, a lair starts with a little truth and then misrepresents it, adds to it, changes it into something that is a distortion. That is what beck did. He moved the goal post from qualifications to socialism without so much as an explination and took those who willingly suspend disbelief with him.





Is that right? Maybe you missed the 10-2-10 circus show....Take a look at who backed it....


Part two:
Click to expand...


God that was horrible. You actuially buy this garbage?

Let's look at the Newsweek artilce he misrepresents:

The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.

We Are All Socialists Now - Newsweek
Click to expand...

This article more accruate speaks to people like the tea party who want smaller government but don't want their medicare touched. This was a look at us the people and not Obama so much. They don't at any point call Obama a socialist.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

(snip)

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.
Click to expand...

So, once again, beck is taking a little truth and lying. And his audience chooses to willing suspend their disbelief and ask no serious questions.

Oh, so you don't have to actually prove wrong the claims of Beck or anyone that opposes the President....Hmmm...I see. But if it is Obama, or supporters making any claims, they don't have to provide evidence of their claims, it is then up to the target of their smears to prove the claims wrong. Ask Chamber of Commerce.....I see.
Click to expand...

No, you don't see. Instead you simply choose to miss the point, see the evidence, listen to what has been said or carefully inspect your own thought process. And I have never suggest Obama doesn't have to prove his arguments. Or that his supports don't have to support their claims. This is again you trying to skew the debate in order to have to deal with the truth.

Read:


To get up to speed with liberal tactics today.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Why? Just because he gives you an excuse not to reason through something doesn't mean he's worthy of being read. From what you and others have quoted of him he seems like a whinny wus who doesn't want to actually tackle an argument. I see no value it that. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Tell yourself what you have to.
Click to expand...

As humans, we all tell ourselves what we have to, don't we? Even you Joe.

More hyperbole. Presidents don't control the economy. He can't save it and he can't ruin it.
Click to expand...

Then it is a fallacy to continually blame the economic crisis on Bush, is it not?

He would work better as a satire, but no. He presents him self as someone who is saying something honest. he isn't.
Click to expand...

Then refute his evidence. All I see so far is you saying "No it's not." No proof, no real substance, just the usual, Joe said it so it must be. Sorry, that isn't good enough.

Guilt by association? Any new tricks? No, I see no authoritarian bent. Read about LBJ if you really want to see someone with an authoritarian bent.
Click to expand...

More like Wilson, or FDR.

J, miscontruded conclusions are nto and never will be fact. Take the quote you use as an example. The quote is a fact. the conclusion drawn is not. And if you read the article honestly, you would see it was not what Beck claimed it to be.
Click to expand...

So show us why. Just because you proclaim it so, doesn't make it so.

Like I said, a lair starts with a little truth and then misrepresents it, adds to it, changes it into something that is a distortion.
Click to expand...

Not at all. This is as insidious as the "out of context" argument you libs love so. Liberals when gaffing, love to come back and try and tell us, 'don't believe what you heard me say, believe what I tell you.' That's crap, I don't suspend critical thinking for the sake of group think like liberals do.

That is what beck did. He moved the goal post from qualifications to socialism without so much as an explination and took those who willingly suspend disbelief with him.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't, and you haven't backed up this specious claim from the start. So I would have to say it is an empty charge, a distraction.

God that was horrible. You actuially buy this garbage?
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, you don't like Beck, we get it, now refute it.

Let's look at the Newsweek artilce he misrepresents:



This article more accruate speaks to people like the tea party who want smaller government but don't want their medicare touched. This was a look at us the people and not Obama so much. They don't at any point call Obama a socialist.



So, once again, beck is taking a little truth and lying. And his audience chooses to willing suspend their disbelief and ask no serious questions.
Click to expand...

Beck Response:

We're All Socialists Now, Aren't We? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

No, you don't see. Instead you simply choose to miss the point, see the evidence, listen to what has been said or carefully inspect your own thought process.
Click to expand...

Another Alinsky tactic here. Joe stop with this, it is absurd. Ofcourse I question every day what is a fair analysis of what Obama is doing, and as I have laid out many times I don't only watch or listen to conservative sources. But yet still you think you must portray me as some how less intelligent, somehow flawed in logic. This is a huge mistake on your part.

Or that his supports don't have to support their claims. This is again you trying to skew the debate in order to have to deal with the truth.
Click to expand...

When I see you actually support the claims with solid and reasoned thinking, then I will recognize it, and we can start. So far all we really have is you yelling, 'nuh-uh' and executing various smears, and name calling. Not any credible rebuttal by far.

Why? Just because he gives you an excuse not to reason through something doesn't mean he's worthy of being read. From what you and others have quoted of him he seems like a whinny wus who doesn't want to actually tackle an argument. I see no value it that.
Click to expand...

Rules for radicals is the very template liberals today use in discourse. You are employing the tactics right here in this very debate.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
As humans, we all tell ourselves what we have to, don't we? Even you Joe.
Click to expand...

Some more than others j, and I have a ways to go to catch you. ;)


Then it is a fallacy to continually blame the economic crisis on Bush, is it not?
Click to expand...

I have said so repeatedly.


Then refute his evidence. All I see so far is you saying "No it's not." No proof, no real substance, just the usual, Joe said it so it must be. Sorry, that isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

J, there is no evidence, that is what you're failing to understand. leaps of logic are not evidence. Taking a quote and removing it from it's context is not evidence.


More like Wilson, or FDR.
Click to expand...

Well, it's real bad to be compare to those two. :rolleyes:

So show us why. Just because you proclaim it so, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

I have j. I showed what was really going on in what he quoted, and logically moved you toward what was really being discussed.

Not at all. This is as insidious as the "out of context" argument you libs love so. Liberals when gaffing, love to come back and try and tell us, 'don't believe what you heard me say, believe what I tell you.' That's crap, I don't suspend critical thinking for the sake of group think like liberals do.
Click to expand...

J, context matters. It is dishonest to say otherwise. Beck is creating a context that doesn't exist, prue fiction. Instead, we have to look at what was really going on.

Doing this is a response and does refute beck.

Beck Response:
Click to expand...

j, this is just one long seris of non sequiturs. This is an inference that does not follow from the premises, a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said. Beck is making a leap, huge leaps. I may not be skilled enough to cut through your fog, but he is not being honest. Nor is he being logical.


Another Alinsky tactic here. Joe stop with this, it is absurd. Ofcourse I question every day what is a fair analysis of what Obama is doing, and as I have laid out many times I don't only watch or listen to conservative sources. But yet still you think you must portray me as some how less intelligent, somehow flawed in logic. This is a huge mistake on your part.
Click to expand...

:lamo Thanks for proving my point. What you don't want to address, you make excuses for.


Rules for radicals is the very template liberals today use in discourse. You are employing the tactics right here in this very debate.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, that's merely your bias allowing a poorly reasoned argument to make you all fuzzy. It's really just whinny ****.
 
Boo Radley said:
Giving power to a nutter is not returning power to the people. The people would have done better to make sure a valid candidate made to the ballot. I not espouse to the theory that anyone will do. They should at least meet a minimal standard.
Click to expand...

Why is Angle a "Nutter"? And as you like to imply... no personal opinion, we need fact.

She mopped the floor with Reid in the Debate; whereas Reid was telling people they should go to his office to get their life straight, and how much he was doing with this program or that, or bashing insurance companies when the problem is the Feds and their laws... Angle easily stated the obvious. In short: Government is the problem not the solution, and Harry Reid, Obama's water boy has been active destroying the country by piling up debt and adding more layers of government.

After 2-years Americans clearly understand Obama is little more than a con-man, and many were conned... and are now rightly pissed off. Reid has huge culpability as one of the Con-Man's Top Enablers, and should go down as a result. Reid's the Nutter... for who in their right mind becomes the darling of al Jazeera by telling the world from Capitol Hill that "The War is Lost", when we have troops fighting and dying on the battle field? Only a treasonous nut.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Why is Angle a "Nutter"? And as you like to imply... no personal opinion, we need fact.

She mopped the floor with Reid in the Debate; whereas Reid was telling people they should go to his office to get their life straight, and how much he was doing with this program or that, or bashing insurance companies when the problem is the Feds and their laws... Angle easily stated the obvious. In short: Government is the problem not the solution, and Harry Reid, Obama's water boy has been active destroying the country by piling up debt and adding more layers of government.

After 2-years Americans clearly understand Obama is little more than a con-man, and many were conned... and are now rightly pissed off. Reid has huge culpability as one of the Con-Man's Top Enablers, and should go down as a result. Reid's the Nutter... for who in their right mind becomes the darling of al Jazeera by telling the world from Capitol Hill that "The War is Lost", when we have troops fighting and dying on the battle field? Only a treasonous nut.

.
Click to expand...

I addressed that earlier. First I took a supporter's word she was a nutter. That's where the question came from. Someone stated that though she was a nutter, she was clearly better than Reid. I askled, if she's a nutter and reid is imcompetent as the poster claimed, why shoudl anyone be happy.

But, later, I posted some of her more extreme quotes and positions. Look back and follow the links.

Then if you add yesterday's comment concerning a room full of hispanics all looking Asin to her, . . . well, . . . she can hardly be considered top of the line. Not to mention her over the top attack ads (something not limited to party btw). I just don't see how any one in Nevada or the country can be happy.



BTW, what reviews I seen of the deabte was that both stunk up the place. In fact, I think, and I could be wrong, there's some polling showing how disappointed the public was to it. But I won't sear to that.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I addressed that earlier. First I took a supporter's word she was a nutter. That's where the question came from. Someone stated that though she was a nutter, she was clearly better than Reid. I askled, if she's a nutter and reid is imcompetent as the poster claimed, why shoudl anyone be happy.

But, later, I posted some of her more extreme quotes and positions. Look back and follow the links.

Then if you add yesterday's comment concerning a room full of hispanics all looking Asin to her, . . . well, . . . she can hardly be considered top of the line. Not to mention her over the top attack ads (something not limited to party btw). I just don't see how any one in Nevada or the country can be happy.



BTW, what reviews I seen of the deabte was that both stunk up the place. In fact, I think, and I could be wrong, there's some polling showing how disappointed the public was to it. But I won't sear to that.
Click to expand...

You obviously did not read any of the reviews from local sources that Prof posted, but that's not surprising.

I have yet to see you or any other lib remark on Reid's long history of dubious acts that lined his pockets with money. Or did you actually believe his excuse during the debate that he became rich by being a great lawyer for two years??
 
Gill said:
You obviously did not read any of the reviews from local sources that Prof posted, but that's not surprising.

I have yet to see you or any other lib remark on Reid's long history of dubious acts that lined his pockets with money. Or did you actually believe his excuse during the debate that he became rich by being a great lawyer for two years??
Click to expand...

No, I didn't see the Prof's sources, but then again he generally is little more than a source garbage can. No logical argument, just continuous links, so I don't routinely read him.

And I don't care a single bit about reid. But be clear, I have asked why would anyone be happy with either. Your side si the only side challeneging me. So, don't you understand how that would make the discussion lean overwhelming toward Angle? :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I didn't see the Prof's sources, but then again he generally is little more than a source garbage can. No logical argument, just continuous links, so I don't routinely read him.

And I don't care a single bit about reid. But be clear, I have asked why would anyone be happy with either. Your side si the only side challeneging me. So, don't you understand how that would make the discussion lean overwhelming toward Angle? :lamo
Click to expand...

No, I don't understand that at all. You and other libs are the ones that try to make her appear crazy while ignoring Reid's thievery.

And, you confession that you don't bother reading links confirms quite a bit. You continually demand proof, yet don't even bother to read it when offered. Says a lot about you.
 
Gill said:
No, I don't understand that at all. You and other libs are the ones that try to make her appear crazy while ignoring Reid's thievery.

And, you confession that you don't bother reading links confirms quite a bit. You continually demand proof, yet don't even bother to read it when offered. Says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

Again, insteasd of battling a sterotypical lib, listen to me carefully. I asked, why would anyone be happy to choose between an incompetent and a nutter (an Angle's supporters word)?

And I demand proof from someone making a claim. This doe not require me reading all random links thrown by someone I'm not arguing with. Again, pay attention.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, insteasd of battling a sterotypical lib, listen to me carefully. I asked, why would anyone be happy to choose between an incompetent and a nutter (an Angle's supporters word)?

And I demand proof from someone making a claim. This doe not require me reading all random links thrown by someone I'm not arguing with. Again, pay attention.
Click to expand...

Really? Who should the people in Nevada vote for then ???? I guess you believe they should have only one senator for the next six years. :roll:

Oh I pay attention. You are the leading hypocrite on this board with your double standard.
 
Gill said:
Really? Who should the people in Nevada vote for then ???? I guess you believe they should have only one senator for the next six years. :roll:
Click to expand...

I personally think they should have paid more attention in the primary season and put up two viable candidates. I know this is unreasonable, but I think they would have been better served.
 
Boo Radley said:
I personally think they should have paid more attention in the primary season and put up two viable candidates. I know this is unreasonable, but I think they would have been better served.
Click to expand...

Well, you're finally right........ it is unreasonable.
 
Boo Radley said:
I personally think they should have paid more attention in the primary season and put up two viable candidates. I know this is unreasonable, but I think they would have been better served.
Click to expand...



It's not unreasonable BUT the anger out there is Real and in Nevada, In Delaware and Kentucky 3 less than top notch Republican candidates emerged. All can possibly Win even. The pendelum swings back & forth and that's the breaks. The GOP will be hurt over the long haul here however because this underlaying need by some to purge the ranks will backfire and it might just put Palin at a higher level than ever before with disasterous long tem results.
 
On the debate:

Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) -- The debate in the nation's marquee Senate race was probably the dullest thing that happened in Las Vegas on Thursday night.

(snip)

With no knockout blows and no fumbles, call it a draw. Now, it's up to their respective campaign teams to close the deal.

Analysis: Who won Reid-Angle debate? - CNN.com
 
Ned Racine said:
It's not unreasonable BUT the anger out there is Real and in Nevada, In Delaware and Kentucky 3 less than top notch Republican candidates emerged. All can possibly Win even. The pendelum swings back & forth and that's the breaks. The GOP will be hurt over the long haul here however because this underlaying need by some to purge the ranks will backfire and it might just put Palin at a higher level than ever before with disasterous long tem results.
Click to expand...

Anger not directed and focused is often more harmful than helpful. Just being pissed off without thinking and working to better, not continue or make worse, is pointless if not stupid. One of my many problems with tea parties is they are soo unfocused, being angery their only real or coherent connecting ideaology.
 
Boo Radley said:
BTW, what reviews I seen of the deabte was that both stunk up the place. In fact, I think, and I could be wrong, there's some polling showing how disappointed the public was to it. But I won't sear to that.
Click to expand...

I watched the debate, and neither Reid or Angle are orators of the highest order, but Reid was worse. He had difficulty at times finishing his thoughts. Angle clearly kicked his butt when you look at content.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the electorate needing to go to Reid's office to get their finances sorted out, nor do I like it when the only thing the candidate harps about is the pork he cut from the hog, nor his demonizing private business regulated to death; and when the regulations harm both the business and citizens.

Reid gave Angle bushels full of ammo.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
I watched the debate, and neither Reid or Angle are orators of the highest order, but Reid was worse. He had difficulty at times finishing his thoughts. Angle clearly kicked his butt when you look at content.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the electorate needing to go to Reid's office to get their finances sorted out, nor do I like it when the only thing the candidate harps about is the pork he cut from the hog, nor his demonizing private business regulated to death; and when the regulations harm both the business and citizens.

.
Click to expand...

I sure that your view would be that way. No offense meant. I would assume a Reid supporter would say both were bad, but Reid was just a little better. And a completely nutrel obsever might stick forks in his ears. Who knows.

But I do know we all see things though the prism of our own world view and are seldom see with completely clear eyes.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not if you replace him with a nutter. no one wins that.
Click to expand...

We know Reid is a nutjob because he's proven it over time. Not so for Angle. Anyway... assuming she is also a nutter, what do you do?

You take the lesser of 2 nutters which is of course Angle. Thats the best win we can get from Nevada.
 
Obamanator said:
We know Reid is a nutjob because he's proven it over time. Not so for Angle. Anyway... assuming she is also a nutter, what do you do?

You take the lesser of 2 nutters which is of course Angle. Thats the best win we can get from Nevada.
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to my original question, why should anyone in Nevada or in the country be happy about this?
 
Obamanator said:
We know Reid is a nutjob because he's proven it over time. Not so for Angle. Anyway... assuming she is also a nutter, what do you do?

You take the lesser of 2 nutters which is of course Angle. Thats the best win we can get from Nevada.
Click to expand...

If both are nutters you vote the one in that will have the least power to hurt you. That would be the freshman not the majority leader.
 
ptif219 said:
If both are nutters you vote the one in that will have the least power to hurt you. That would be the freshman not the majority leader.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but wouldn't hold your nose and be rather unhappy about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom